New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (14634 previous messages)

rshow55 - 11:25am Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14635 of 14638)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

NO appeasement - we're doing statistics here - and doing a demonstration of how "explosive fights" happen - and go on and on.

Missile Defense #14511 - rshow55 Oct 7, 2003 08:14 am http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.n9g5batmLiW.1166040@.f28e622/16221

"There's a point I've been trying to teach - not live through - that is relevant here.

"To get fully workable cooperations - based on knowledge - it often happens that the actors involved have to get to the edge of a fight - enough so that the people involved get to know what they can do - and how they are vulnerable - and have a sensible degree of fear.

"Then - people should know enough to back off - arrange a really workable and reasonably fair cooperation - and go on safely...

14511-13 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.n9g5batmLiW.1166040@.f28e622/16221 make interesting reading.

Suggestion: Search "agree to disagree."

I tried to do that with Cooper - and he insisted on going on fighting - unless I agreed that I was the bad guy - and my wife and I just didn't feel that way. So what could have been a resolution wasn't.

How are we to learn enough so that agreement can happen? We have things to learn about facts - generally and in the specific cases where conflict is involved - and things to learn emotionally, too. Piaget might have been amazed, sophisticated as he was, at how incompletely those lessons have been assimilated by leaders of the United States.

That's an essential question we have to learn to answer routinely - and successfully - if we're to sort out some very large messes.

I have no apologies (or anyway, not too many) about making the point here.

The point is directly relevant to things that have gone on, and are going on, and have to go on, at the UN and everywhere else where conflict is a problem

cantabb - 11:26am Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14636 of 14638)

rshow55 - 10:08am Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14629 of 14630)

I'm dealing with you on a batched basis - because noise immunity is necessary to function - and so much of your stuff looks so much like noise to me.

That’s so ridiculously ironic !

If “so much of [my] stuff looks so much like noise to [you],” imagine what most of YOUR “stuff” looks like to me, or most other posters [except of course the “world asset” lchic & fredmoore] !

Deal however you can or must !

I do consider your points from time to time.

Good. That'd kind of you.

At the risk of being unappreciative, please know that I can’t say the same about yours.

But I don't see why I should feel forced to organize my mind to fit the connections you want - unless it feels right -and at my pace. I don't expect any more than that from anybody else

No body’s forcing you to “organize” you mind: WE know how nearly impossible it must be. Just suggesting it, in case you ever wanted to make sense or be taken seriously.

I think -- and quite unconsciously on your part -- you may be getting just a little of what I have said : IF you don’t want to make the “connections” I want, what makes you think that OTHERS (including me) would accept the “connections” YOU want to make !

See if you can deal with matters, objectively and also rationally ! In an ‘organized’ manner -- I may be asking too much !

klsanford0 - 11:33am Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14637 of 14638)

Just sent off another concise yet methodical post to the Mods. re. Showalter....I must travel on business to another city today, don't worry, Cantabb, I'll be back Friday....to carry on the struggle against Showalter...just must travel today/tomorrow....

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense